• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Urges F.C.C. to Adopt Strict Rules on Net Neutrality

So no, I don't believe that ISPs are as locked in a monopoly that you might be thinking they are.

You posted a hypothetical network that still requires I use an ISP as evidence that there can be real competition for ISPs.

Let me know when such a network becomes widespread, with comparable speeds and reliability and cost.
 
So you're more worried about an imaginary future tax than your isp determining your bandwidth based on the sites that they want you to use?

As Ive said before, I can fire my ISP. Govt is here forever, whether I like it or not.
 
... the ISPs are the monopolies, and there are a lot of reasons why they're monopolies beyond scary government regulations. Google has poured billions into starting up an ISP in... two cities. It takes that level of financial backing to try and get into this business.

Like electrical generation, internet access is a service that simply doesn't lend itself well to truly free competition. The infrastructure required is tremendous.

Then invent something new. Thats what markets do, and govt DOESNT.
 
As Ive said before, I can fire my ISP. Govt is here forever, whether I like it or not.

Statistically speaking, you probably can't.
 
No, you know what? I'm ****ing serious. Comcast won. Comcast ****ing won. They paid off some corrupt politician, and in return that politician spouted to the press that net neutrality was a liberal-vs-conservative issue knowing it would work because all he had to do was say the words "Obama" and "Obamacare" in the same sentence and that was the end of it: every hack conservative across the country perked up like gophers and said "What? You mean net neutrality was a liberal plot all along? Screw my own interests! DOWN WITH NET NEUTRALITY!" And now in probably a year or two we're all going to be paying for every goddamn site we want to visit and conservatives will sit in smug satisfaction that another liberal conspiracy was crushed. After Rubio's comments I heard every conservative's brain across the country slam shut like a bear trap. Just keep an eye on every net neutrality debate that happens from now on and tell me I'm wrong. The topic of net neutrality might as well be abortion from now on, as people are going to fall along political lines in the exact, identical way. Now we'll all be too busy fighting each other as every internet provider walks away counting our money.

They'll be sorry when it takes 30 minutes for a page here at DP to load unless you pay extra.
 
They'll be sorry when it takes 30 minutes for a page here at DP to load unless you pay extra.

No they won't. They'll blame Obama. At no point will it occur to them that supporting Obama's position would have prevented the situation that they would find themselves in.
 
The only logical way I can see anyone opposing Net Neutrality is if they are in fact, Comcast or Time Warner. Like Cardinal said, leave it to a whack job like Ted Cruz to turn something that everyone should stand for into a Partisan issue. If you care at all about small business, stand for Net Neutrality.
 
Net Neutrality regulations are not new? Reclassifying ISPs as utilities is not new? Sorry, but that is new.

The Internet is working just fine as it is and requires no further government regulations to screw it up. Often, such as in this case, more government regulation isn't the best and only answer.

But it isn't the government that is screwing things up, it is the ISPs and the big media outlets who are deciding that limiting bandwidth in certain ways can make them more money. That's at the core of net neutrality, not having the government stick their noses in things. Even if the government stays totally out of the picture, net neutrality goes out the window.
 
If "we've had net neutrality all these years", why is there a need for yet more regulation? Apparently it's working just fine.

It was working just fine until these giant media conglomerates realized they could make more money by limiting bandwidth based on who pays them the most. That's the change, not government intervention.
 
Then invent something new. Thats what markets do, and govt DOESNT.

For some reason, the magical free market has yet to do so.
 
As Ive said before, I can fire my ISP. Govt is here forever, whether I like it or not.

Technically yes, like you can technically shut off your water and electricity.

However, this is 2014. Internet access is a basic tool of commerce and communication. And as much as we'd love the free market to come up with a substantial alternative to the form we have now, it hasn't.
 
Technically yes, like you can technically shut off your water and electricity.

However, this is 2014. Internet access is a basic tool of commerce and communication. And as much as we'd love the free market to come up with a substantial alternative to the form we have now, it hasn't.

It would if it was neccesary. It wont with govt taking the need away.
 
For some reason, the magical free market has yet to do so.

Physical voice
Paper
Radio
Digital
Satelitte
Cellular
WiFi
WiMax
Fiberoptic
Cable
DSL
Powerline transmission
Quantum coupling

And those are just methods of moving the information. The format of the information has 100 new ideas everyday.
 
Physical voice
Paper
Radio
Digital
Satelitte
Cellular
WiFi
WiMax
Fiberoptic
Cable
DSL
Powerline transmission
Quantum coupling

And those are just methods of moving the information. The format of the information has 100 new ideas everyday.

This isn't a libertarian-vs-statist issue. Net neutrality is good for everybody (except Comcast of course). It sounds like Cruz's comment had the intended impact on you.
 
Statistically speaking, you probably can't.

Agreed. I'm in a rural area. If I fired my ISP - which is DSL - I'd have to go satellite, which limits uploads/downloads. No other option. I also hear VPN doesn't work well with satellites.

So technically, I could fire my ISP. But I'd have to quit my job.

On the plus side, my ISP has worked with me a lot on my past connection issues, and when they started installing broadband accelerators they called me to see if I wanted to be part of the beta program (DUH! I said yes almost before the sentence was done!) So I have a good ISP.
 
Last edited:
Agreed. I'm in a rural area. If I fired my ISP - which is DSL - I'd have to go satellite, which limits uploads/downloads. No other option. I also hear VPN doesn't work well with satellites.

So technically, I could fire my ISP. But I'd have to quit my job.

On the plus side, my ISP has worked with me a lot on my past connection issues, and when they started installing broadband accelerators they called me to see if I wanted to be part of the beta program (DUH! I said yes almost before the sentence was done!) So I have a good ISP.

Well, if you don't like the fact that you only have one internet provider to choose from, then you should move to a major metropolis like a normal person.

Kidding aside, though, I'm so pissed off that it's taking Google Fiber so long to expand to more cities. I mean, Provo? Provo?? ****ing Provo Utah gets Google Fiber before Los Angeles?
 
This isn't a libertarian-vs-statist issue. Net neutrality is good for everybody (except Comcast of course). It sounds like Cruz's comment had the intended impact on you.

Sure it is. The govt should not be regulating private business, of which the internet is a private business.
 
Sure it is. The govt should not be regulating private business, of which the internet is a private business.

See, that's what Cruz has you doing: he has you arguing against your own interests. You were fooled, and it was ridiculously easy to do.
 
Agreed. I'm in a rural area. If I fired my ISP - which is DSL - I'd have to go satellite, which limits uploads/downloads. No other option. I also hear VPN doesn't work well with satellites.

So technically, I could fire my ISP. But I'd have to quit my job.

On the plus side, my ISP has worked with me a lot on my past connection issues, and when they started installing broadband accelerators they called me to see if I wanted to be part of the beta program (DUH! I said yes almost before the sentence was done!) So I have a good ISP.

There you go, you have options. And how is it my problem that you choose to live in a rural area? Why should I pay for the FCCs 100million project to bring broadband to rural areas?

Rural Broadband Experiments | FCC.gov
 
There you go, you have options. And how is it my problem that you choose to live in a rural area? Why should I pay for the FCCs 100million project to bring broadband to rural areas?

Rural Broadband Experiments | FCC.gov

I'm pretty sure you're not going to have to pay $100,000,000 to anybody, although there have been hilarious clerical errors of that type before.
 
It would if it was neccesary. It wont with govt taking the need away.

So the government is helping to provide a higher quality, lower cost option that the free market can't beat yet?

It's not about "need," right? If an alternative was of superior value, people would go with that even if they didn't "need" to. Get me something with the same speed and reliability at less cost, and absolutely I'll switch to that. I'll even accept a little bit slower at a greatly reduced cost, more bang for my buck.



Physical voice
Paper
Radio
Digital
Satelitte
Cellular
WiFi
WiMax
Fiberoptic
Cable
DSL
Powerline transmission
Quantum coupling

And those are just methods of moving the information. The format of the information has 100 new ideas everyday.

And let me know when a substantial alternative appears in the market instead of a laboratory.
 
Sure it is. The govt should not be regulating private business, of which the internet is a private business.

So, seriously, airlines shouldn't have regulations regarding pilot duty times and recurrent training?
 
Well, if you don't like the fact that you only have one internet provider to choose from, then you should move to a major metropolis like a normal person.

Kidding aside, though, I'm so pissed off that it's taking Google Fiber so long to expand to more cities. I mean, Provo? Provo?? ****ing Provo Utah gets Google Fiber before Los Angeles?

I grew up in KCMO!! how can it get Google fiber when I don't live there anymore?
 
Back
Top Bottom